slaughter of the innocents at Bethlehem, on account of the silence of
1. Under the first head some objection has been made to the slaughter of the innocents at Bethlehem, on account of the silence of Josephus; but the argument from silence is not conclusive, and it has been pointed out that the massacre is quite in accord with the character of Herod during his later years. A far more serious objection is that against the census of Luke (Luke 2:1ff.), a discussion of which would be beyond the scope of the present paper as well as beyond the ability of the writer. We refrain from this intricate chronological question with the better conscience because we do not believe that it has such a vital connection with our subject as is sometimes assumed. If, indeed, it can be proved that the whole census passage is an invention in order to change the place of birth to Bethlehem, then, indeed, the trustworthiness of the narrative will be seriously impaired. But it is just this that has not been proved. On the contrary, it seems unlikely that the author should have put all this imperial machinery in motion, and thus exposed himself to easy refutation, in order to accomplish what might have been easily accomplished by a simpler expedient and one which would perhaps have been less ignominious to the Messianic king.24 Nor is the census passage to be explained as an invention of the author by appealing to the tendency of Luke to bring the facts of Christianity into connection with events of the Roman empire, for that very purpose could not have been attained unless the events related about the empire were authentic and could thus command general recognition. There are thus grave objections against regarding the census as a mere invention of the author or redactor. If, on the other hand, the note about the census is conceived of as the result of a mere blunder, we need not necessarily give up the general trustworthiness of the account. It all depends upon the nature of the blunder. If there never was and never could have been any census which might have brought Joseph and Mary down to Bethlehem, or rather which might have been one motive for their journey, then the attack upon the narrative at this point is a serious one. But in view of the tenacity /pg. 658/ with which the Jews held to their real or supposed family trees, it does not seem impossible that an enrolment based upon genealogical principles might have been held; and the